The Evolution of Policy as Politics Change
What Drives Laws?






First, there is popular concern
Individual stories
Then interest groups
 FDA and the Jungle
 MADD
 Insurance industry - what is their interest?
Then pressure on elected officials
Sometimes this is compressed as the legislature reacts
to a crisis
Very seldom does the legislature pass a law just because
it is a good thing
Nader and Public Interest:
First Chevrolet, then Al Gore

Unsafe at any Speed - 1965
The Seat Belt Saga II




Then Congress passes the Traffic and Motor
Vehicle Safety Act
1967 - regulation requiring seatbelts
1972 - realized that people where not wearing the
seatbelts
Regulation requiring automatic seatbelts or
airbags by 1975
The Seat Belt Saga III





Required cars between 1973 and 1975 to have
automatic seatbelts or ignition interlocks
Chrysler v. DOT affirmed the regs
Industry choose interlocks - why?
1974 - Congress passed a law banning regs
requiring interlocks and said that all future regs
on passive restraints had to be submitted to
Congress for legislative veto
Chadha fixes that
The Seat Belt Saga IV



DOT under Ford withdrew the regs
DOT under Carter (a few months later) passed
new passive restraint regs for 1982 and Congress
did not veto them
1979 - Regs were affirmed in Pacific Legal
Foundation v. DOT
The Seat Belt Saga V


1981 - DOT under Reagan withdrew the regs
because the car companies were going to use
automatic seatbelts that could be disconnected.
1983 - Motor Vehicles Manufacturers Assoc. V
State Farm hit the United States Supreme Court
Motor Vehicle Manufacturers v State Farm
Mutual Auto, 463 U.S. 29 (1983)



Why these parties?
What is their stake in the game?
How did they end up suing each other?
Procedure




How many rule revisions had been done before
the one in this case?
Why did DOT decide that it could not show that
automatic seatbelts would improve safety?
How did the agency use this to decide that the
cost of the regulations was not justified?
What is the agency's argument that rescinding a
rule is like refusing to make a rule?
The Court's Ruling




Why did the court reject the argument that since there is
little review of refusal to make a rule, that they should be
little review when the agency rescinds the a rule?
What did the court find that the agency ignored in this
analysis?
What did the court want to see in the record for the rule
making?
How is this different from saying that agencies are bound
by precedent when making rules?
What Else is Going On?

Crashworthiness regulations
The Seat Belt Saga VI



1984 - DOT (Libby Dole) promulgated a reg requiring
automatic seatbelts or airbags in all cars after 1989,
unless
 2/3 of the population were covered by state seatbelt
laws, and
 the laws met certain criteria
What did some states do?
 $5 penalty
 No stop
 No meaningful seatbelt defense
Most State laws did not meet the criteria
The Seat Belt Saga VII



1997 - most newer cars had airbags
1998 - airbags kill grannies and little kids!
 Nothing new - known at the time
 Save many more
1999 - You can get your airbag disconnected
 Products liability issues?
What are the new issues in automobile
safety and design?
crashworthiness
 antilock brakes
 traction control
 roll over
 gasoline mileage
 carbon emissions
 What is the government role in these?
